View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:04 am



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 360 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next
 A Clump of Condor Cells 
Author Message
Motorman
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 2:13 am
Posts: 418
Location: The Valley Dude
Post 
Just pulling your chain, Vic! You have done the same.

_________________
You want to kiss me, admit it!


Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:45 pm
Profile
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 7:25 pm
Posts: 8625
Location: Maryland, U.S.
Post 
Bitchen wrote:
I have a solution for you GUYS. If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one. But if a girl wants one, it isn't any of your business. By the way, the WHORES you are referring to who got pregnant, were impregnated by whore boys who should keep their dick zipped up or covered in plastic wrap. They should also be bringing their own spermicide for the girl to use to protect any spillage.


First off, pro-life extends to females, as well... don't act as if guys are the only people on earth to favor pro-life.

Second, it is not the girl's body that she chooses to terminate. She's terminate someone else's. If the choice was to terminate her own body, then the topic of abortion wouldn't even come up.

More feminazi apologist attitude. I love how you reflect the burdon of fault on the GUYS for getting the girls pregnant, but let's not forget that sex requires the consent of two people (unless we're talking about rape, which we aren't).

Speed_Demon wrote:
No it's not, at the moment of conception, this "person" is a cell, it is no more of a human than a bit of arm tissue.


Oh really? Last I knew my arm wasn't growing a set of lungs, a heart, and a brain. A fetus is a developing human, not an unrecognizable clump of cells. You're talking about a blasocyst (a cell). I'm talking about a fetus (a being).

_________________
- Ryan


Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:45 pm
Profile
God Of The Sun
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:42 am
Posts: 3045
Post 
this kinda reminds me of teri schiavo thing where is she alive and able to make desicsoins and all that.

IMO, a fetus isnt really a being because at a certain state of develpment, it has no self awareness. its dosent think ( therefore doesnt exist :wink: ) same with a single cell. it technically is part of the woman carrying it. just as is her arm or leg.

and yeah bitchen, i think that if someone wants an abortion they should go get it. not really anyone esles business.

_________________
Alt-F4


Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:53 pm
Profile
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 5:11 am
Posts: 5648
Location: Murderapolis
Post 
Quote:
By the way, the WHORES you are referring to who got pregnant, were impregnated by whore boys who should keep their dick zipped up or covered in plastic wrap.


I was only referring to one whore. I knew her, she was a slut. She could have kept her legs closed or recommended that the 'whore boys' used protection.

_________________
You are way too stupid to know what a zygote is, motherfucker.


Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:56 pm
Profile YIM
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Posts: 763
Location: UK
Post 
Ryan wrote:
First off, pro-life extends to females, as well... don't act as if guys are the only people on earth to favor pro-life.

Second, it is not the girl's body that she chooses to terminate. She's terminate someone else's. If the choice was to terminate her own body, then the topic of abortion wouldn't even come up.

Actually, the foetus is linked to the mother, by the umbilical chord, the foetus cannot survive without the mother, so it's essentially like a symbiotic (commensalist) relationship.

Ryan wrote:
More feminazi apologist attitude. I love how you reflect the burdon of fault on the GUYS for getting the girls pregnant, but let's not forget that sex requires the consent of two people (unless we're talking about rape, which we aren't).

Surprising to you, perhaps, pro-choice is not restricted to "feminazis." Are you suggesting here that abortion after rape is acceptable?

Ryan wrote:
Oh really? Last I knew my arm wasn't growing a set of lungs, a heart, and a brain. A fetus is a developing human, not an unrecognizable clump of cells. You're talking about a blasocyst (a cell). I'm talking about a fetus (a being).

Actually, a blastocyst is a clump of cells in the early stages of development of a foetus, which, according to you, is a human.

_________________
"Rap isn't music, it's a semi-coherent negro!"


Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:05 pm
Profile
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 7:25 pm
Posts: 8625
Location: Maryland, U.S.
Post 
vic wrote:
this kinda reminds me of teri schiavo thing where is she alive and able to make desicsoins and all that.

IMO, a fetus isnt really a being because at a certain state of develpment, it has no self awareness. its dosent think ( therefore doesnt exist :wink: ) same with a single cell. it technically is part of the woman carrying it. just as is her arm or leg.

and yeah bitchen, i think that if someone wants an abortion they should go get it. not really anyone esles business.


A fetus can not only feel pain by 16 weeks into development, but it can recognize its mother's voice in utero.

Speed_Demon wrote:
Actually, the foetus is linked to the mother, by the umbilical chord, the foetus cannot survive without the mother, so it's essentially like a symbiotic (commensalist) relationship.


This is where we need to disagree. The "right to terminate your fetus" is an opinion, not a fact. Right to life is a fact, but pro-choicers do not want to extend that right to fetuses. Right to liberty is a fact, but pro-lifers do not want to extend that right to include abortions.

Speed_Demon wrote:
Surprising to you, perhaps, pro-choice is not restricted to "feminazis." Are you suggesting here that abortion after rape is acceptable?


Actually, I am well aware of the pro-choice crowd as I have debated with them nonstop last year. You took my "feminazi" term out of context - it wasn't at all directed to his pro-choice stance.

No, I sideline on abortion in cases of rape. Which means I am neither for it or against it.

Speed_Demon wrote:
Actually, a blastocyst is a clump of cells in the early stages of development of a foetus, which, according to you, is a human.


No, a blastocyst is this.

Which is different than this.

My quote, again: "A fetus is a developing human, not an unrecognizable clump of cells. You're talking about a blasocyst (a cell). I'm talking about a fetus (a being)."

My point was that it gets harder and harder to pass off the growing human as an "unrecognizable clump of cells" as it grows... and by the fetal stage, it has already acquired human form.

_________________
- Ryan


Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:18 pm
Profile
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Posts: 763
Location: UK
Post 
Ryan wrote:
This is where we need to disagree. The "right to terminate your fetus" is an opinion, not a fact. Right to life is a fact, but pro-choicers do not want to extend that right to fetuses. Right to liberty is a fact, but pro-lifers do not want to extend that right to include abortions.

Very mature.

Ryan wrote:
No, a blastocyst is this.

Which is different than this.

My quote, again: "A fetus is a developing human, not an unrecognizable clump of cells. You're talking about a blasocyst (a cell). I'm talking about a fetus (a being)."

My point was that it gets harder and harder to pass off the growing human as an "unrecognizable clump of cells" as it grows... and by the fetal stage, it has already acquired human form.

My point was, a blastocyst develops into a foetus, and you said, that from the moment of conception, the cells are human, even though it is just an unrecognizable clump of cells.

_________________
"Rap isn't music, it's a semi-coherent negro!"


Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:37 pm
Profile
Unt! I move topics!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:56 pm
Posts: 27847
Post 
vic wrote:

IMO, a fetus isnt really a being because at a certain state of develpment, it has no self awareness. its dosent think ( therefore doesnt exist :wink: ) same with a single cell. it technically is part of the woman carrying it. just as is her arm or leg.


Perhaps you should consider the implications of applying your criteria to a new born baby. Most experts believe self awareness does not begin until well after birth. By your logic, killing a two day old baby is morally acceptable.

I do commend you for identifying the crux of the abortion debate. The only debatable point is the moral status of the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus/baby. Once that is determined, it is easy to see that all the other points that people use to cloud the issue are irrelevant. If the fetus has a moral status equal to an adult, then clearly abortion is morally wrong no matter what economic or psychological hardships the pregnancy and birth might cause. The issues of who is responsible for birth control, the morality of sex out of wedlock, the horrors of back-alley abortions, etc. are irrelevant ... if you agree that the moral status of a fetus is equal to that of an adult, abortion is the murder of an innocent and can never be morally justified.

On the other hand, if the fetus has a moral status equal to skin cells, then all of the above mentioned issues easily outweigh the rights of the fetus. For some people, on either extreme of the debate, it is just that simple. But to take the position that a living being must be self aware before having any moral rights does lead to the indefensible position of condoning infanticide. IMO, it is overly simplistic to say that an organism has no rights or moral significance prior to self awareness and then suddenly has rights equal to that of an adult. I agree with the view that self awareness is important in defining a "person." But I believe that any organism with the potential to develop into a person (a "pre-person" if you will) has moral significance. Just as a newborn baby has moral significance, so too does a developing fetus. While I do not believe that the moral significance of a "pre-person" is equal to that of a person, I believe it to be very close to equal. I also believe that the moral significance of the developing fetus increases with time as it gets closer to becoming a person.

For those who have difficulty with the concept of potential being a factor in the moral significance of an organism, consider the following. Two people are about to be killed in a fire and you can save only one ... one is a five year old child, the other is a 105 year old. Both are thinking, self aware human beings. Are their lives equal? Can you honestly say that you would flip a coin to decide which one to save? I can't.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Last edited by TheSurgeon on Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:46 pm
Profile WWW
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 5:11 am
Posts: 5648
Location: Murderapolis
Post 
What if you don't know the 5 year old and the old man is your grandpa. :D

_________________
You are way too stupid to know what a zygote is, motherfucker.


Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Profile YIM
Unt! I move topics!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:56 pm
Posts: 27847
Post 
zblsw wrote:
What if you don't know the 5 year old and the old man is your grandpa. :D


A valid question. Doesn't really shed any additional light on the abortion debate though. To make it equivalent to the abortion situation, assume that you've never met either, but both are blood relatives.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:55 pm
Profile WWW
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 5:11 am
Posts: 5648
Location: Murderapolis
Post 
Quote:
Doesn't really shed any additional light on the abortion debate though.


I know. I was just fuckin with ya. :lol: I think most people would choose the kid, of course. Full life ahead of him and all that.

_________________
You are way too stupid to know what a zygote is, motherfucker.


Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:04 pm
Profile YIM
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Posts: 763
Location: UK
Post 
For me, if the foetus can survive outside of the mother's womb (after around 24 weeks, I think (with the aid of machinery, of course)) then it should not be aborted, however, so long as it cannot survive on its own, and is still totally dependant on the mother, then abortion is okay.

_________________
"Rap isn't music, it's a semi-coherent negro!"


Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:09 pm
Profile
Unt! I move topics!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:56 pm
Posts: 27847
Post 
Speed_DemonX wrote:
For me, if the foetus can survive outside of the mother's womb (after around 24 weeks, I think (with the aid of machinery, of course)) then it should not be aborted, however, so long as it cannot survive on its own, and is still totally dependant on the mother, then abortion is okay.


So the moral status of the fetus is completely dependent upon the existing technology? Don't you realize that the age of viability has changed over time as life support technology has improved? If and when the technology exists to grow an embyro into a baby outside of the womb, will all abortions then be immoral? Conversely, can a newborn baby live independently of its mother or other caregiver? If being able to survive without the support of another human being is the criteria, you'd have to condone the killing of babies and even small children.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:50 pm
Profile WWW
Godzilla

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:42 pm
Posts: 908
Post 
105 year old? :shock: This freak must be saved!

This issue is so clouded. A fetus is a potential adult. The sperm and egg are a potential adult, yet condoms aren't an issue (except with catholics etc.) So you could argue that "potential" does not hold anywhere near the value of real life.


Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:20 pm
Profile
Unt! I move topics!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:56 pm
Posts: 27847
Post 
Totalimmortal wrote:
105 year old? :shock: This freak must be saved!

This issue is so clouded. A fetus is a potential adult. The sperm and egg are a potential adult, yet condoms aren't an issue (except with catholics etc.) So you could argue that "potential" does not hold anywhere near the value of real life.


I would agree there are cloudy areas, although not exactly the ones you mention. A sperm by itself has no potential. An egg by itself has no potential. Only a fertilized egg has the ability to become a person. At least, in normal biology, that is true. These aren't grey areas ... until scientists start tinkering with things, then all bets are off.

For example, what the hell do you do with an egg that has a nucleus of a skin cell inserted into it? If you make a hundred clone embryos from the same person and then kill one, what is the moral significance of that? If you create an embryo that can grow to a certain point but can't develop into an actual baby, is it then ok to use it for experiments? Is it ethical to even create such a thing? I have a great deal of difficulty with such questions.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:06 am
Profile WWW
God Of The Sun
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:42 am
Posts: 3045
Post 
surg i see what your saying. im really just giving off ideas that come to mind.

Ryan: i didnt know that a fetus could respond to pain and recognize a mothers voice. When things like that come into play, the fetus should actually be considered a being. and who has the right to kill a being? nobody....

_________________
Alt-F4


Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:23 am
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:42 pm
Posts: 908
Post 
hmm, we're thinking differently about potential here. If a guy and girl get together, they have the "potential" to make a baby, right?

What I'm trying to say here, is if we start looking at "potential" the actual fetilization is only another step on the way of potential things that could happen resulting in a baby being born.

Saying aborting an embryo is killing a person is like saying "there could have been a person in existance, if these 2 people had had sex, but they chose not to, ending that person's potential life", technical differences aside.

So it all comes down to wether we classify embryos as human life or just potential human life. If we only classify them as potential life, then there is no difference between aborting them at that stage and the sexual encounter never happening, if we classify them as life, then abortion is morally wrong.

Edit - missed an entire sentence out :oops:


Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:24 am
Profile
Viking Kong
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 7:25 pm
Posts: 8625
Location: Maryland, U.S.
Post 
The deal with "potentiality" is kind of lost when conception happens. A sperm and an egg are a "potential" human. But when they combine, they have become a human being.

"Potential" implies that they have the possibility of becoming a human... but the possibility of becoming something else. But what else could a 1 day old blastocyst become if not a human?

_________________
- Ryan


Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:37 am
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:42 pm
Posts: 908
Post 
It could die/be terminated (depending on whether you believe it's life).

I see a new angle now; if a potential life is only potential because it could die, and the only reason it could die is because we might abort it, then we get into a loop... :roll: :lol:


Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:49 am
Profile
Godzilla

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:42 pm
Posts: 908
Post 
so abortion is legal purely because it would be far worse if it was illegal? Or does the government actually believe embryos are not life?


Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:04 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 360 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.